The would-be Times Square terrorist almost escaped. The Obama administration says that it’s the job of the airlines to check passengers against the no-fly list, and that Emirates Airlines dropped the ball. Luckily Customs spotted Faisal Shahzad on the passenger list before his flight left, but after he had already boarded.
The Obama administration may claim a victory here, but it seems more like dumb luck. The anti-terrorist system is no good if you trust that the airlines will do all the right things at the right time. In this case, Emirate Airlines followed their usual procedure of updating their no-fly list infrequently, and we didn’t have a clue that they probably wouldn’t have a current list available to check against less than 24 hours after Faisal Shahzad was put on it.
Trusting in dumb luck is no way to run an airline, and even less an anti-terrorist system.
Showing posts with label Islamofascism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamofascism. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Monday, January 19, 2009
Mission Accomplished!
After 9/11, all the pundits, journalists, and politicians agreed that the United States would suffer more deadly attacks at the hands of Islamic terrorists. Tomorrow when he turns the most difficult job in the world over to President-elect Obama, President Bush will have done what was thought impossible, kept the United States safe from attack for over seven years.
Many other countries can't point to the same accomplishment. The list of countries whose citizens were murdered and maimed by Islamic terrorists since 9/11 is long and tragic. These are just a few of the many: the UK, 52 dead, over 700 injured; Spain, 191 dead, 1,755 injured; Bali, Indonesia, 202 killed, 209 injured; Moscow, 120 hostages killed; Istanbul, 26 killed, 22 injured; Beslan school, Russia, 330 dead; Mumbai, India, 165 dead, over 300 injured.
In 2003 and 2004 alone there were several deadly attacks in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and The Philippines, and in many other lands, but none in the United States.
Mission Accomplished!
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Salman Rushdie Protests Random House Censorship - San Francisco Chronicle Buries the Story
I clicked on “Google News” to scan the headlines, and this caught my eye: GOP plans shot down over oil, The San Francisco Chronicle, August 16, 2008. Wow! I thought. It sure didn’t take long for Nancy Pelosi to renege on her statement that she would allow debate on offshore drilling.
However, on further inspection I found what Google News featured as a news article was actually only a very opinionated, fact-free Letter to the Editor. In a way I can understand the Google News confusion. The San Francisco Chronicle news articles and editorials usually are very opinionated and fact-free.
Aisha, Mohammad says he has a big surprise for you tonight!
When real news is afoot, The Chronicle has no appreciation for its relative worth, and we find abominations like their placement on page E-3 (the Entertainment section) of Salman Rushdie’s complaint about Random House pulling an historical novel about the prophet Muhammad and his child bride Aisha because of speculation that it would anger Muslims.
Damn it! Everything angers Muslims! Since when have American publishers, writers, and journalists based their actions on avoiding offending Christians, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, misogynists, racists, and etc.? Actually, if the misogynist and racists are Muslims, which many are, are publishers, writers, and journalists do go out of their way to avoid making them angry.
Why have violent, ignorant savages been given power over the thoughtful and educated of the world? Once the irrational fear of Hitler and his Brown Shirts that brought the Nazis to power in a cultured and refined nation, one with a proud tradition of great literature and music.
What Random House has done is a book burning without the messy need of inciting a howling mod and lighting a fire. They have allowed a book to be banned by illiterates.
In America we proudly (but erroneously) quote Voltaire: "I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."
But then we amend our courageous stance: “However, even if I agree with you, if it might annoy an illiterate Muslim ten thousand miles away, I’m out of here!”
However, on further inspection I found what Google News featured as a news article was actually only a very opinionated, fact-free Letter to the Editor. In a way I can understand the Google News confusion. The San Francisco Chronicle news articles and editorials usually are very opinionated and fact-free.
Aisha, Mohammad says he has a big surprise for you tonight!
When real news is afoot, The Chronicle has no appreciation for its relative worth, and we find abominations like their placement on page E-3 (the Entertainment section) of Salman Rushdie’s complaint about Random House pulling an historical novel about the prophet Muhammad and his child bride Aisha because of speculation that it would anger Muslims.
Damn it! Everything angers Muslims! Since when have American publishers, writers, and journalists based their actions on avoiding offending Christians, Jews, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, misogynists, racists, and etc.? Actually, if the misogynist and racists are Muslims, which many are, are publishers, writers, and journalists do go out of their way to avoid making them angry.
Why have violent, ignorant savages been given power over the thoughtful and educated of the world? Once the irrational fear of Hitler and his Brown Shirts that brought the Nazis to power in a cultured and refined nation, one with a proud tradition of great literature and music.
What Random House has done is a book burning without the messy need of inciting a howling mod and lighting a fire. They have allowed a book to be banned by illiterates.
In America we proudly (but erroneously) quote Voltaire: "I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."
But then we amend our courageous stance: “However, even if I agree with you, if it might annoy an illiterate Muslim ten thousand miles away, I’m out of here!”
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Irrational Islamophobia
UC Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian defined Islamophobia as "unfounded hostility toward Muslims and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." (Looking at people's phobia of Muslims, by Matthai Kuruvila, Chronicle Religion Writer, Saturday, April 26, 2008)
I’m sure that since the first academic conference focused on Islamophobia is being held at Berkeley, the finding will be that fear of Muslims is totally irrational.
It’s certain that Bali tourists, London and Madrid commuters, Danish cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh and Aayan Hirsi Ali, Hindus in Kashmir, former Muslims who convert, Israelis living anywhere, but particularly near Gaza and the West Bank, the children of Beslan, the Moscow theater hostages, and many others, would all agree that fear of Muslims is totally irrational. Those still alive would, anyway.
Unlike Nicholas Berg, the three Christian girls in Indonesia, Daniel Pearl, Jack Hensley, Eugene Armstrong, Paul Johnson, some Turks, an Egyptian, a Korean, some Bulgarians, a British businessman, a Nepalese, and countless others, we shouldn’t lose our heads and give in to irrational fear.
Personally, I lived “on the economy” in Turkey with my late first wife and infant son for a year in 1964, and felt no fear. However, I can’t say the same for Armenians half a century before.
Although fear of Islam is irrational, American newspapers that had no qualms about publishing such things as photos of Serrano’s “Piss Christ” will not print the Danish “Mohammad” cartoons. It’s safe to criticize Islam, if you are ready to go into protective custody the rest of your life.
I’m sure that since the first academic conference focused on Islamophobia is being held at Berkeley, the finding will be that fear of Muslims is totally irrational.
It’s certain that Bali tourists, London and Madrid commuters, Danish cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh and Aayan Hirsi Ali, Hindus in Kashmir, former Muslims who convert, Israelis living anywhere, but particularly near Gaza and the West Bank, the children of Beslan, the Moscow theater hostages, and many others, would all agree that fear of Muslims is totally irrational. Those still alive would, anyway.
Unlike Nicholas Berg, the three Christian girls in Indonesia, Daniel Pearl, Jack Hensley, Eugene Armstrong, Paul Johnson, some Turks, an Egyptian, a Korean, some Bulgarians, a British businessman, a Nepalese, and countless others, we shouldn’t lose our heads and give in to irrational fear.
Personally, I lived “on the economy” in Turkey with my late first wife and infant son for a year in 1964, and felt no fear. However, I can’t say the same for Armenians half a century before.
Although fear of Islam is irrational, American newspapers that had no qualms about publishing such things as photos of Serrano’s “Piss Christ” will not print the Danish “Mohammad” cartoons. It’s safe to criticize Islam, if you are ready to go into protective custody the rest of your life.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
There Goes Nutty Jimmy Carter Again
Jimmy Carter continues to demonstrate the lack of abilities he displayed so prominently when he was president. In his latest foray into ineptitude, he honored Hamas while believing their transparent lies that they would recognize Israel's right to exist if such a deal was approved by a Palestinian vote.
Carter, naïve and gullible as ever, trumpeted to the world he had the framework of a peace agreement between Hamas and Israel, while at the same moment Meshaal, the Hamas leader in exile in Syria, told a press conference in Damascus that Hamas would not recognize the Jewish state and would insist on the right of return for 4.5 million Palestinian refugees.
Further analysis of the details showed that Hamas had placed an impossible condition on conducting a Palestinian vote that Carter should have recognized immediately, that the voting include all Palestinian refugees worldwide.
Apparently Jimmy Carter has difficulties in understanding discussions he is a party to. He denies that the State Department told him that the United States would not deal with Hamas and, as Secretary of State Rice commented, "we certainly told president Carter that we didn't think meeting with Hamas was going to help the Palestinians who (are) actually devoted to peace."
Aside from the fact that it is the long standing and clearly stated policy of the United States, since at least 1999 during the Clinton administration, that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and that the United States won’t deal with terrorist organizations, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We stand by (Secretary Rice’s statements) as statements of fact."
So there he goes again. Jimmy Carter reports one thing, just as Hamas denies it. Jimmy Carter says no one cautioned him about meeting with Hamas, when that has been United States policy concerning Hamas for at least a decade, whether a Democrat or a Republican was president.
Jimmy, those goobers aren’t the only nuts on your Georgia farm.
Carter, naïve and gullible as ever, trumpeted to the world he had the framework of a peace agreement between Hamas and Israel, while at the same moment Meshaal, the Hamas leader in exile in Syria, told a press conference in Damascus that Hamas would not recognize the Jewish state and would insist on the right of return for 4.5 million Palestinian refugees.
Further analysis of the details showed that Hamas had placed an impossible condition on conducting a Palestinian vote that Carter should have recognized immediately, that the voting include all Palestinian refugees worldwide.
Apparently Jimmy Carter has difficulties in understanding discussions he is a party to. He denies that the State Department told him that the United States would not deal with Hamas and, as Secretary of State Rice commented, "we certainly told president Carter that we didn't think meeting with Hamas was going to help the Palestinians who (are) actually devoted to peace."
Aside from the fact that it is the long standing and clearly stated policy of the United States, since at least 1999 during the Clinton administration, that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and that the United States won’t deal with terrorist organizations, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We stand by (Secretary Rice’s statements) as statements of fact."
So there he goes again. Jimmy Carter reports one thing, just as Hamas denies it. Jimmy Carter says no one cautioned him about meeting with Hamas, when that has been United States policy concerning Hamas for at least a decade, whether a Democrat or a Republican was president.
Jimmy, those goobers aren’t the only nuts on your Georgia farm.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Land of the Free - Not You, Frenchie!
I often think of how wonderful life is in America. This immediately makes me an object of scorn and ridicule by Liberals.
“How can you say life is wonderful, when there is (insert a Liberal lament about something that doesn’t meet that particular Liberal’s idea of perfection).”
Please believe me, I don’t think life is perfect. For one thing, at some point each of us dies. That’s the ultimate bummer.
Liberals lament that the government isn’t taking care of everyone. I think that’s wonderful. It is my unshakable opinion that no government can take as good care of a person as that person can of himself.
If Brigitte still looked like this, she wouldn't be on trial for what she said, but maybe for what she did. Vive La France!
Today I found another reason to be thankful that I’m living my life at this time as an American. I read that Brigitte Bardot is being tried by the French government for controversial remarks she made about Islam, apparently concerned with its religious practice of slaughtering a sheep or another animal to commemorate the prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's orders.
As a practicing carnivore, I don’t have any problem with Muslims sacrificing sheep, goats, or chickens. I don’t care for their practice of cutting themselves and bleeding profusely, and I’m thoroughly disgusted by Muslim suicide bombers, who predominantly kill other Muslims, thinking that puts them on a fast track to Heaven and 72 virgins.
In fact, among many lamentable Muslim practices, I consider that by far the most barbarous.
If I were a Frenchman, by now what I’ve written in this blog post would probably be enough to get me to a trial and earn me heavy fines. Of course, I’ve already written many posts much more critical and derogatory of Islam than this mild criticism. Again, if I were a Frenchman, I probably now would be blogging from a jail cell, if blogging were permitted in a French prison.
Certainly my criticism of the French government and their defense of France 2 television filming the hoax of Mohammad al-Dura being “shot” by Israelis would qualify me for trial, as well as my post about France 2 being deceived by “Pallywood.”
In France there is no freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is like pregnancy. You can’t be pregnant by degrees – you either are, or you’re not, pregnant. Free speech is just the same – if criticizing ideas or beliefs is not allowed, then you can speak only in government sanctioned terms.
But I’m an American, one of the freest of the free. Even though I’ve posted fifty-one articles under the label “Islamofascism,” I have not a legal care in the world.
My only care is that one of the Islamic nut cases, which seem a natural state for a Muslim who believes that the silliness of the Quran was inspired by God, will try to find Gualala and its most Islam-critical resident. However, I don’t lose any sleep, because even locals have a hard time finding our house, so I doubt an illiterate Muslim fanatic whose only education was memorizing the Quran would be able to understand the maps and directions to get here.
If he does I’ll take a page from Abraham and roast his camel.
“How can you say life is wonderful, when there is (insert a Liberal lament about something that doesn’t meet that particular Liberal’s idea of perfection).”
Please believe me, I don’t think life is perfect. For one thing, at some point each of us dies. That’s the ultimate bummer.
Liberals lament that the government isn’t taking care of everyone. I think that’s wonderful. It is my unshakable opinion that no government can take as good care of a person as that person can of himself.
If Brigitte still looked like this, she wouldn't be on trial for what she said, but maybe for what she did. Vive La France!
Today I found another reason to be thankful that I’m living my life at this time as an American. I read that Brigitte Bardot is being tried by the French government for controversial remarks she made about Islam, apparently concerned with its religious practice of slaughtering a sheep or another animal to commemorate the prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's orders.
As a practicing carnivore, I don’t have any problem with Muslims sacrificing sheep, goats, or chickens. I don’t care for their practice of cutting themselves and bleeding profusely, and I’m thoroughly disgusted by Muslim suicide bombers, who predominantly kill other Muslims, thinking that puts them on a fast track to Heaven and 72 virgins.
In fact, among many lamentable Muslim practices, I consider that by far the most barbarous.
If I were a Frenchman, by now what I’ve written in this blog post would probably be enough to get me to a trial and earn me heavy fines. Of course, I’ve already written many posts much more critical and derogatory of Islam than this mild criticism. Again, if I were a Frenchman, I probably now would be blogging from a jail cell, if blogging were permitted in a French prison.
Certainly my criticism of the French government and their defense of France 2 television filming the hoax of Mohammad al-Dura being “shot” by Israelis would qualify me for trial, as well as my post about France 2 being deceived by “Pallywood.”
In France there is no freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is like pregnancy. You can’t be pregnant by degrees – you either are, or you’re not, pregnant. Free speech is just the same – if criticizing ideas or beliefs is not allowed, then you can speak only in government sanctioned terms.
But I’m an American, one of the freest of the free. Even though I’ve posted fifty-one articles under the label “Islamofascism,” I have not a legal care in the world.
My only care is that one of the Islamic nut cases, which seem a natural state for a Muslim who believes that the silliness of the Quran was inspired by God, will try to find Gualala and its most Islam-critical resident. However, I don’t lose any sleep, because even locals have a hard time finding our house, so I doubt an illiterate Muslim fanatic whose only education was memorizing the Quran would be able to understand the maps and directions to get here.
If he does I’ll take a page from Abraham and roast his camel.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Fitna, the Movie
Click on the movie name in red to go to Fitna, (courtesy of Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs) the Movie by Geert Wilders about the Quran (in English). The movie is short, and very simple. It merely takes the words of the Quran and translates them, then illustrates some of the resulting violence the Quran has inspired in the followers of Islam. In other words, it just uses the words of the Quran in juxtaposition to the words and deeds of its adherents.
As usual, the Islamofascists have threatened to kill any and all who have anything to do with this movie. That includes you and me - me for bringing it to your attention, and you for watching it. Of course, it's easier for them to learn of my part than yours.
However, they still haven't found Gualala, and I guess I'm safe since GPS can't find it either. I do keep my eyes open for anyone wearing a long flowing robe or a burqa, but that description applies to some of the old hippies up here too.
As usual, the Islamofascists have threatened to kill any and all who have anything to do with this movie. That includes you and me - me for bringing it to your attention, and you for watching it. Of course, it's easier for them to learn of my part than yours.
However, they still haven't found Gualala, and I guess I'm safe since GPS can't find it either. I do keep my eyes open for anyone wearing a long flowing robe or a burqa, but that description applies to some of the old hippies up here too.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Diplomacy with Islam is Dead
An op-ed article in the San Francisco Chronicle today brought the truth of United States-Muslim relations clear to me. There aren’t any.
Diplomatic relations not only do not exist between Muslims and the United States, they don’t exist between Muslims and anybody else, including other Muslims.
How can you negotiate an agreement with terrorists to not blow up innocent civilians with suicide bombers? What can you say to them, what agreements can you make on their demands? What can we stop doing that will stop them from blowing up innocent civilians?
Stop supporting Israel?
Is that why Muslims kill Hindus in India, because they support Israel?
Do Shia support Israel, and that’s why Sunni blow them up? And vice versa?
It’s a hard figure to pin down, but for every infidel killed by a Muslim, I think 100, or perhaps 1,000, Muslims are killed by Muslims.
If anyone could talk diplomacy with Muslims, wouldn’t you expect it would be other Muslims?
No one can talk diplomacy with Muslims, because their terrorist acts are commanded by Allah.
You know that.
Nothing happens that Allah doesn't will to happen.
Therefore, terrorists are carrying out the wishes of Allah, and will be rewarded by Allah.
But wait. Isn't Allah a God of peace, and compassion?
Would a God of peace and compassion direct his followers to slaughter innocent men, women, and children?
Most of whom are also his followers?
There is the answer as to why diplomacy doesn't and will not work with the Islamic terrorists.
They are a pack of fanatical, ignorant idiots.
No true God of peace and compassion, all powerful and all knowing, would cause and reward the slaughter of innocents. Therefore, the terrorists are acting without reason and cause. If there truly is a God worthy of worship, every Islamic suicide bomber and those who aid and direct them are on express tracks to Hell.
Diplomatic relations not only do not exist between Muslims and the United States, they don’t exist between Muslims and anybody else, including other Muslims.
How can you negotiate an agreement with terrorists to not blow up innocent civilians with suicide bombers? What can you say to them, what agreements can you make on their demands? What can we stop doing that will stop them from blowing up innocent civilians?
Stop supporting Israel?
Is that why Muslims kill Hindus in India, because they support Israel?
Do Shia support Israel, and that’s why Sunni blow them up? And vice versa?
It’s a hard figure to pin down, but for every infidel killed by a Muslim, I think 100, or perhaps 1,000, Muslims are killed by Muslims.
If anyone could talk diplomacy with Muslims, wouldn’t you expect it would be other Muslims?
No one can talk diplomacy with Muslims, because their terrorist acts are commanded by Allah.
You know that.
Nothing happens that Allah doesn't will to happen.
Therefore, terrorists are carrying out the wishes of Allah, and will be rewarded by Allah.
But wait. Isn't Allah a God of peace, and compassion?
Would a God of peace and compassion direct his followers to slaughter innocent men, women, and children?
Most of whom are also his followers?
There is the answer as to why diplomacy doesn't and will not work with the Islamic terrorists.
They are a pack of fanatical, ignorant idiots.
No true God of peace and compassion, all powerful and all knowing, would cause and reward the slaughter of innocents. Therefore, the terrorists are acting without reason and cause. If there truly is a God worthy of worship, every Islamic suicide bomber and those who aid and direct them are on express tracks to Hell.
Monday, February 11, 2008
For Truth About Iraq - Pelosi or Al Qaeda?
Nancy Pelosi says the surge was a failure and the war in Iraq is lost.
Several Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders wrote that their organizations are almost totally destroyed and on the verge of collapse. "We are in crisis. There is panic and fear."
(Regarding this Al Qaeda quote, it does show similarities with Democrats.)
Who are you going to believe?
The highest ranking Democrat in the world, or an ignorant, lying, Islamofascist fanatic?
It’s no contest.
The Islamofascist is trying to get help for a lost cause.
The Democrat is trying to snatch defeat for America from the jaws of victory. She’ll do and say anything, including dumping her country in the toilet, to try to make President Bush and Republicans look bad.
When the subject is Nancy Pelosi, “honest Democrat” is an oxymoron.
Please click the labels below to go to my other posts on similar issues.
Several Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders wrote that their organizations are almost totally destroyed and on the verge of collapse. "We are in crisis. There is panic and fear."
(Regarding this Al Qaeda quote, it does show similarities with Democrats.)
Who are you going to believe?
The highest ranking Democrat in the world, or an ignorant, lying, Islamofascist fanatic?
It’s no contest.
The Islamofascist is trying to get help for a lost cause.
The Democrat is trying to snatch defeat for America from the jaws of victory. She’ll do and say anything, including dumping her country in the toilet, to try to make President Bush and Republicans look bad.
When the subject is Nancy Pelosi, “honest Democrat” is an oxymoron.
Please click the labels below to go to my other posts on similar issues.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Islam, Religion of Peace, Tolerance and Human Rights
A Muslim father in Toronto murdered his 16-year old daughter because she wouldn’t wear the hijab as he demanded. I’m sure that Liberals will all jump to his defense: “You have to respect his culture and beliefs. In our culture we ground the kid for a week; in Islamic culture they just ground the kid permanently.”
You know "honor killings" are part of Muslim culture, don't you? I wonder what Dr. Spock, the ultimate non-judgmental Liberal icon, would have said about Muslim child-rearing practices.
Feminists, human-rights activists, and Liberals of all stripes have been resoundingly silent about Muslim honor killings. "It's their culture, you know. We mustn't be judgmental."
Sometimes the person who impugns the honor of her husband, father, or family, is not lucky enough to die.
Zahida Perveen's head is shrouded in a white cotton veil, which she self-consciously tightens every few moments. But when she reaches down to her baby daughter, the veil falls away to reveal the face of one of Pakistan's most horrific social ills, broadly known as "honour" crimes. Perveen's eyes are empty sockets of unseeing flesh, her earlobes have been sliced off, and her nose is a gaping, reddened stump of bone.
Sixteen months ago, her husband, in a fit of rage over her alleged affair with a brother-in-law, bound her hands and feet and slashed her with a razor and knife. She was three months pregnant at the time. "He came home from the mosque and accused me of having a bad character," the tiny, 32-year-old woman murmured as she awaited a court hearing ... "I told him it was not true, but he didn't believe me. He caught me and tied me up, and then he started cutting my face. He never said a word except, "This is your last night." (Constable, "The Price of 'Honour'," The Gazette (Montreal), May 22, 2000.)
Perveen's husband stated in court that "What I did was wrong, but I am satisfied. I did it for my honour and prestige."
Go here for more information about how Muslims handle female disobedience, alleged infidelity, or just about any other instance of a Muslim male being dissatisfied by something a female did or didn't do.
In the curious logic of Islam, if a Muslim woman is raped, she is killed by her family. Then her brothers rape the wife of the rapist, who then is killed by her father and her rapist husband. The result? Two innocent victims dead, and many guilty parties congratulating themselves for preserving their honor and prestige.
True, we do look at many things differently. Here when the National Endowment for the Arts subsidizes an “artist” to create “Piss Christ,” simply a photo of a plastic crucifix in a jar of the artiste's urine, we declare anyone who doesn’t come all over themselves in orgasmic appreciation of such artistic vision as a cultural Neanderthal. (For an example of such self-gratifying excess, go to Salon.com's review of The Holy Virgin Mary in elephant dung and pornography in their Arts & Entertainment section.)
In an Islamic culture any artist who sketches anything, and labels it “Muhammad,” or a teacher who allows a Teddy Bear to be named “Muhammad,” is immediately reserved a prominent position in front of a firing squad.
Artistic expression and freedom be damned.
Take a simple test. Google “Piss Christ” and you will find thousands of images and news stories, not one of them about anyone killed because of it.
Now Google “Danish cartoons.” You will find articles about jihad and fatwas against the cartoonists, and against any publication that even runs one of the cartoons, or just champions the right of a free press to publish them.
What you will find little of is the cartoons actually being published in a western newspaper or magazine (but you can see them here. Please be my guest). In contrast, after Piss Christ was “created,” then displayed in 1989, its image was ubiquitous.
Personally, “Piss Christ” and “Elephant Dung Virgin Mary With Pornography” inspired me to draw “Gay Muhammad.”
I’m still waiting for a check from the NEA to match the $15,000 (with increases for inflation) grant they gave Andrés Serrano for his masterpiece.
Or a laudatory review in the Arts & Entertainment section of Salon.com.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Religion and Terrorism
"Fearing Muslims just because some Muslims are terrorists is as irrational as blaming every white American for the past sins of slavery, or every Christian for the excesses of the crusades."
So wrote a frequent commenter.
I replied:
You really tortured logic on this one. In one deadly event after another perpetrated by Muslims, the fact of their religious belief is the cause of their terrorist acts. A scribbled drawing of the Prophet is a command from Allah to kill, whereas a crucifix displayed in a bottle of urine leads to nothing more from Christians than a few angry letters.
Therefore, it is prudent to not risk offending a Muslim, because they may exact deadly revenge.
How any of that relates to white Americans today and blame for the sins of slavery is beyond comprehension. A Muslim terrorist is, under close inspection, still a Muslim, whereas a white American today, under that same close inspection, is not a slaver. In fact, there is a very good chance that none of his/her relatives were either, at least in the past several hundred years.
And then you compound the silliness by referring back to the "excesses of the Crusades." It would seem that the only way that would have relevance is if more than an occasional nut case today was attempting to spread Christianity at the point of the sword.
Didn't anyone ever tell you that you can't visit the sins of the father on the head of the son?
But you can criticize a Muslim community that doesn't take a loud, principled stand against terrorist acts against civilian populations.
So wrote a frequent commenter.
I replied:
You really tortured logic on this one. In one deadly event after another perpetrated by Muslims, the fact of their religious belief is the cause of their terrorist acts. A scribbled drawing of the Prophet is a command from Allah to kill, whereas a crucifix displayed in a bottle of urine leads to nothing more from Christians than a few angry letters.
Therefore, it is prudent to not risk offending a Muslim, because they may exact deadly revenge.
How any of that relates to white Americans today and blame for the sins of slavery is beyond comprehension. A Muslim terrorist is, under close inspection, still a Muslim, whereas a white American today, under that same close inspection, is not a slaver. In fact, there is a very good chance that none of his/her relatives were either, at least in the past several hundred years.
And then you compound the silliness by referring back to the "excesses of the Crusades." It would seem that the only way that would have relevance is if more than an occasional nut case today was attempting to spread Christianity at the point of the sword.
Didn't anyone ever tell you that you can't visit the sins of the father on the head of the son?
But you can criticize a Muslim community that doesn't take a loud, principled stand against terrorist acts against civilian populations.
Muslims Overly Represented in World Terrorism
A frequent commenter disputed my assertion that world terrorism is predominantly Muslim. I suppose I could cite recent headlines from Somalia, the Sudan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Chechnya, Indonesia, Thailand, and many others. I could cite attacks in New York, London, Madrid, Bali, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Kenya, the Netherlands, France, Turkey, Yemen, Israel, Algeria, the Palestinian Authority, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, and the list goes on.
Go here to learn about the 8,387 deadly terror attacks since 9/11.
Then go here for a list of each of the hundreds of Islamic terrorist attacks during the past three months, and the number killed and injured in each attack.
Scroll down and you will find complete detailed lists of attacks for each year going back to 9/11.
It doesn't take much to make people fearful of Islamist militants. In the Netherlands, a film producer was assassinated for making a film critical of Muslim domestic abuse.
Years ago Sir Salmon Rushdie had a fatwa, a death sentence placed on his head by Ayatollah Khomeini because he wrote a book about the Quran's Satanic Verses. He has been fearful and under armed guard protection since because the fatwa can never be raised because Ayatollah Khomeini died without removing it.
The commenter's remarks about life in Western Europe lead me to believe he didn't know what he was talking about. I lived in the UK for over five years, in Turkey a year, Alice and I rode our bikes through Germany, England, Ireland, and Wales for four months, rode our bikes through Scotland, England, and Ireland for two months, and have vacationed in Austria, Germany, Italy, Greece, Spain, Russia, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and soon will be in Hungary.
We spoke to many Western Europeans, particularly Germans since we both speak German and spent a lot of time there, and found much contrary to his statements.
One, social mobility is not as fluid as in the United States. One of many reasons is that it is difficult to start a business, or to expand one, because of the high taxes and labor regulations which make it difficult to downsize a workforce or adjust working hours, days, and duties.
Unemployment in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy is roughly 10%,twice as high as the US rate of 4.5%.
His rose-colored characterization of European life was at odds with reality:
"The precipitous rise in unemployment in Europe has caused huge social problems in recent years. The rupture of social cohesion, the marginalization of a large part of the labor force, and the fall in living standards for a significant number of European citizens have shaken the faith of Europeans in the European ideal, of "Social Europe," such that in some countries the supporters of Economic and Monetary Union now constitute a minority."
I also disputed his conclusions about the high poverty rate in the US. Median income in the US is a close second to Switzerland, and according to both the IMF and the CIA World Factbook, the US per capita GDP is behind only Norway and Ireland (very closely behind) as highest in the world among countries larger than a mid-sized city.
"(A comparison of US and European disposable incomes disclose that) those in the lowest 10% here have about the same disposable income as those in the lowest 10% in Europe. It's almost an exact tie. At the other end of the scale, the highest 10% here have much higher disposable incomes than the highest 10% over there. Are only the rich making out like bandits? Well, look at the middle guy (i.e., look at the median). The European in the middle makes only about 73% of what the American in the middle makes."
Here is the cite.
It makes great reading, and there is a lot more.
By the way, the Turkish military felt it had to make a statement recently to oppose the steady erosion of secularism in Turkey by Islamic fundamentalists.
During the year I lived in Turkey I found that religion played a much greater part in daily life there than it does in the US. Since then religion has steadily weakened here, and Islamists have been picking up political power there. The commenter said he would like to see a million march in the streets here because"...the president does not believe in the separation of church and state."
Of course the president does, but the prospective Turkish president didn't. It would be a waste of time for the million to march here, but Liberals always seem to have a lot of time on their hands for demonstrations.
Go here to learn about the 8,387 deadly terror attacks since 9/11.
Then go here for a list of each of the hundreds of Islamic terrorist attacks during the past three months, and the number killed and injured in each attack.
Scroll down and you will find complete detailed lists of attacks for each year going back to 9/11.
It doesn't take much to make people fearful of Islamist militants. In the Netherlands, a film producer was assassinated for making a film critical of Muslim domestic abuse.
Years ago Sir Salmon Rushdie had a fatwa, a death sentence placed on his head by Ayatollah Khomeini because he wrote a book about the Quran's Satanic Verses. He has been fearful and under armed guard protection since because the fatwa can never be raised because Ayatollah Khomeini died without removing it.
The commenter's remarks about life in Western Europe lead me to believe he didn't know what he was talking about. I lived in the UK for over five years, in Turkey a year, Alice and I rode our bikes through Germany, England, Ireland, and Wales for four months, rode our bikes through Scotland, England, and Ireland for two months, and have vacationed in Austria, Germany, Italy, Greece, Spain, Russia, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and soon will be in Hungary.
We spoke to many Western Europeans, particularly Germans since we both speak German and spent a lot of time there, and found much contrary to his statements.
One, social mobility is not as fluid as in the United States. One of many reasons is that it is difficult to start a business, or to expand one, because of the high taxes and labor regulations which make it difficult to downsize a workforce or adjust working hours, days, and duties.
Unemployment in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy is roughly 10%,twice as high as the US rate of 4.5%.
His rose-colored characterization of European life was at odds with reality:
"The precipitous rise in unemployment in Europe has caused huge social problems in recent years. The rupture of social cohesion, the marginalization of a large part of the labor force, and the fall in living standards for a significant number of European citizens have shaken the faith of Europeans in the European ideal, of "Social Europe," such that in some countries the supporters of Economic and Monetary Union now constitute a minority."
I also disputed his conclusions about the high poverty rate in the US. Median income in the US is a close second to Switzerland, and according to both the IMF and the CIA World Factbook, the US per capita GDP is behind only Norway and Ireland (very closely behind) as highest in the world among countries larger than a mid-sized city.
"(A comparison of US and European disposable incomes disclose that) those in the lowest 10% here have about the same disposable income as those in the lowest 10% in Europe. It's almost an exact tie. At the other end of the scale, the highest 10% here have much higher disposable incomes than the highest 10% over there. Are only the rich making out like bandits? Well, look at the middle guy (i.e., look at the median). The European in the middle makes only about 73% of what the American in the middle makes."
Here is the cite.
It makes great reading, and there is a lot more.
By the way, the Turkish military felt it had to make a statement recently to oppose the steady erosion of secularism in Turkey by Islamic fundamentalists.
During the year I lived in Turkey I found that religion played a much greater part in daily life there than it does in the US. Since then religion has steadily weakened here, and Islamists have been picking up political power there. The commenter said he would like to see a million march in the streets here because"...the president does not believe in the separation of church and state."
Of course the president does, but the prospective Turkish president didn't. It would be a waste of time for the million to march here, but Liberals always seem to have a lot of time on their hands for demonstrations.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Not All Muslims Are Terrorists
A spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown noted correctly (and gratuitously) that “not all Muslims are terrorists.”
However, he failed to note that presently, most terrorists are Muslims.
For example, in 2006 there were 20,573 deaths caused by terrorists world wide, up 41 percent from 2005, according to the United States Counter Terrorism Center.
Of total deaths from terrorism in 2006, 84 percent were in the Near East and South Asia.
As informative as these statistics are about Muslim terrorism, of even greater significance are the numbers that are not included. For example, terrorism was credited with only causing 716 deaths in Sudan in 2006, while an analysis of expected deaths compared to total deaths indicates that the Muslim Janjaweed “militia” cause about 100,000 deaths per year through their terrorist activities.
Similar cases of gross undercounting of deaths from terrorism can be found in Israel and Lebanon, where many activities of Hamas and Hizbollah are not considered terrorism.
As you go about the world, you find that terrorism can be found just about anywhere that Muslims associate with anyone, including other Muslims. In fact, over half the victims of Muslim terrorism are Muslims.
Concerning Islamic terrorism, some interesting points have been raised.
A former radical Islamic would-be terrorist in the UK, Hassan Buttt, wrote that Islamic theology was the basis for the violent acts Islamist terrorists have carried out or planned.
His feels that Islamic terrorists laugh in disbelief when Western news media place the blame for Islamic terrorism on Western foreign policy.
He noted, for example, that the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."
At least that is a welcome departure from blaming Israel, or United States military bases in Saudi Arabia, or Danish cartoons of Mohammad, or all the other scapegoated reasons cited to excuse terroristic violence.
Since most of the violence in Iraq towards Muslims is by Muslims, it seems that Muslims find it easy to live up to our stereotype of them as facile terrorists.
Concerning Iraq, Mr. Butt says that is laughable, and adds: “And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.”
If Mayor Livingstone actually exhibited any intelligence concerning Islamic terrorism, rather than fatuously claiming he had insights, he would realize that Muslim fanatics have a long history of violence that predates Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the creation of Israel.
Hassan Butt dispels this simplistic Liberal penchant to fix blame on the United States or Western culture by speaking from personal knowledge and experience, not from mindless conjecture designed to fill a spot on the Left’s political agenda.
Always blaming ourselves for the misdeeds of others never gives us the ability to prevent the violence.
It just deflects attention from the truth.
However, he failed to note that presently, most terrorists are Muslims.
For example, in 2006 there were 20,573 deaths caused by terrorists world wide, up 41 percent from 2005, according to the United States Counter Terrorism Center.
Of total deaths from terrorism in 2006, 84 percent were in the Near East and South Asia.
As informative as these statistics are about Muslim terrorism, of even greater significance are the numbers that are not included. For example, terrorism was credited with only causing 716 deaths in Sudan in 2006, while an analysis of expected deaths compared to total deaths indicates that the Muslim Janjaweed “militia” cause about 100,000 deaths per year through their terrorist activities.
Similar cases of gross undercounting of deaths from terrorism can be found in Israel and Lebanon, where many activities of Hamas and Hizbollah are not considered terrorism.
As you go about the world, you find that terrorism can be found just about anywhere that Muslims associate with anyone, including other Muslims. In fact, over half the victims of Muslim terrorism are Muslims.
Concerning Islamic terrorism, some interesting points have been raised.
The controversies surrounding the subject of Islamic terrorism include: whether the motivation of the terrorists or alleged terrorists is self-defense or offensive expansion, national self-determination or Islamic supremacy; what targets of the terrorists or alleged terrorists are noncombatants; whether Islam condones, or sometime condones terrorism; whether some attacks are Islamist terrorism, or only terrorist acts done by Muslims; how much support there is in the Muslim world for what kinds of Islamic terrorism; whether the Arab-Israeli Conflict is the root of Islamic terrorism, or simply one cause.
A former radical Islamic would-be terrorist in the UK, Hassan Buttt, wrote that Islamic theology was the basis for the violent acts Islamist terrorists have carried out or planned.
His feels that Islamic terrorists laugh in disbelief when Western news media place the blame for Islamic terrorism on Western foreign policy.
He noted, for example, that the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."
At least that is a welcome departure from blaming Israel, or United States military bases in Saudi Arabia, or Danish cartoons of Mohammad, or all the other scapegoated reasons cited to excuse terroristic violence.
Since most of the violence in Iraq towards Muslims is by Muslims, it seems that Muslims find it easy to live up to our stereotype of them as facile terrorists.
Concerning Iraq, Mr. Butt says that is laughable, and adds: “And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.”
If Mayor Livingstone actually exhibited any intelligence concerning Islamic terrorism, rather than fatuously claiming he had insights, he would realize that Muslim fanatics have a long history of violence that predates Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the creation of Israel.
Hassan Butt dispels this simplistic Liberal penchant to fix blame on the United States or Western culture by speaking from personal knowledge and experience, not from mindless conjecture designed to fill a spot on the Left’s political agenda.
Always blaming ourselves for the misdeeds of others never gives us the ability to prevent the violence.
It just deflects attention from the truth.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
President Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Islamophobia
Not long ago the foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) concluded that Islamophobia was the worst form of terrorism.
As I read their complaint in the May 17, 2007 Arab News, “The Middle East’s Leading English Language Daily,” I was immediately struck by how little damage the Danish cartoonists who drew Mohammad caused, and by how much more blood the Muslims reacting belatedly to the cartooning caused to flow.
If these Danish drawings are as vicious as it gets, to label them as the worst form of terrorism would seem to greatly devalue the more deadly forms.
I concluded my post: “So what is this Islamophobia, this worst form of terrorism?
First, it is a myth.
Then it is a device to label all criticism of Islam, even by Muslims, as discrimination and racism.
Finally, since a phobia is an "irrational fear," the only irrationality I have noted in this examination of Islamophobia is on the part of Muslims who think the Western bloc has not been given ample cause to fear militant Islamists.
Calling what is in essence a fear of Islamic terrorism by the Western bloc to be the worst form of terrorism is one of the most irrational things I have ever heard.
It's Islamophobia-phobia.”
A recent reader of my blog, and now a constant Commenter, waded in:
“Islamophobia refers to irrational fear of Islam, not Islamic terrorists. Fearing Muslims just because some Muslims are terrorists is as irrational as blaming every white American for the past sins of slavery, or every Christian for the excesses of the crusades.
There are two issues. One is that most muslims aren't terrorists. That is why we shouldn't fear Islam, but violent extremists everywhere. Did you know that pre-Iraq the most common use of suicide bombings was by atheists? They didn't (and don't) do it because they expect some heavenly reward. Terrorism - of all kinds - has nothing to do with religion.
The second issue is that terrorism is dangerous, but it is hardly the biggest threat of our time. To exaggerate its threat is to draw attention from other, more urgent problems, such as the low living standards in the US, the increasingly unchecked power of the central government, the snowballing public (and private) debt, the poor quality of many schools and the lack of highly trained professionals. More acutely, the endless kowtowing to China is a more direct and persistent threat to the West's long-term economy and living standards than anything AQ can cook up.
And if you missed it, please check on the recent events in Turkey. I'ld (sic) like to see a million Americans march in the streets because they think the president does not believe in the separation of church and state. Moderate muslims are speaking up, and very loudly at that. They just don't get airtime in the West.”
I answered
"One is that most muslims aren't terrorists."
True, but most terrorists are Muslims.
Do you believe, as the Arab foreign ministers do, that Islamophobia is the worst terrorism?
"To exaggerate its threat is to draw attention from other, more urgent problems, such as the low living standards in the US..."
Since the United States enjoys the highest standards of living the world has ever known, I can't appreciate how this is a more urgent problem than Islamic terrorism.
"...the increasingly unchecked power of the central government..."
Check it - vote! Didn't Democrats just win back Congress?
Of course, more Americans voted for President Bush than for any president
in history. That's probably why you have a problem.
Your other points about snowballing debt and the poor quality of many schools and lack of trained professionals have been issues I have been critical of for a long time. We are still suffering the run-away spending launched by LBJ's entitlement avalanche of The Great Society. The Teacher's Union strangle-hold on education and their opposition to improvement and reform are reflected in the poor quality of many schools. The lack of quality professionals was the subject of one of my recent blog posts: The State of Education in America – We’re Doomed!
I lived in Turkey for a year, and I know about the tension between Islamists and secularists. You are truly perpetrating a grand distortion if you think there are similarities between the forces demanding a Turkish theocracy and religious trends in America.
Where else are moderate Muslims speaking up loudly?
At this point, Commenter and I had opened up many threads, which we have continued for a total of 15 comments under the broad heading of Islamophobia, and another 21 comments loosely pertaining to Jimmy Carter, the Worst Former President of all Time.
Earlier we did 21 comments on health care, with Commenter sure that the universal health care systems failing in the UK and Canada, and facing a demographic time bomb in the rest of Europe because of rapidly aging and stagnant or shrinking populations, were the wave of the future.
Out of these voluminous exchanges, patterns emerge. Of course, there is the ever present Liberal vs. Conservative. But over and above that, I start the blame game at LBJ, who I believe, and am borne out by historical analyses, launched the entitlements tsunami called the Great Society that has been and still is inundating and sinking federal, state, and local budgets.
When discussing the Great Society, disaster terminology is totally appropriate. Even Commenter is appalled by our national debt, while unable to understand its direct link to entitlements spending launched by the Great Society.
LBJ also expanded JFK’s misadventure in South East Asia into the greatest foreign policy and military debacle in the history of the United States, an unmitigated disaster we are still paying for today.
Commenter, on the other hand, finds President Reagan totally to blame, even though total real discretionary outlays increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and only 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). LBJ massively increased both defense and non-defense spending, while President Reagan increased defense spending, but cut non-defense spending. LBJ launched Medicare, and President Reagan took office with it and Social Security already running deficits (which started early in the Carter administration). President Reagan not only had to restore the United States military after years of Carter neglect, he also had to bring the economy out of recession, double digit inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment, and rescue Social Security and Medicare.
That President Reagan was able to accomplish all of these monumental tasks, and launch a period of prosperity, is testament to his greatness. "(The Reagan) economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.”
So far I have found only a few things that Commenter and I share. Neither of us believe in the Democrats, but Commenter doesn't believe in any of the parties - so he says. Still, I bet he never votes Republican or Libertarian, as I do, and I bet he votes.
We both agree communism is a failure, Soviet style anyway. I would not label Chinese communism a failure yet, because it shows marvelous skills of adaptation and will probably soon morph into full capitalism while still wearing the communist label.
Our exchanges are good exercise, and particularly reinforce the maxim to never assume anything. I didn't think anyone would defend Carter, say it is irrational to worry about Islamic militants, and argue that Western Europe exhibits more economic promise and social mobility than the United States.
I wonder what Commenter thinks about climate change being caused by natural forces?
I invite any and all who have read this far to go my posts on Jimmy Carter, Islamophobia (and more Islamophobia), and National Health care and read the comments. Commenter and I both put in a lot of time on them, and if nothing else they illustrate how every issue is in play.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
What Caused Islamophobia?
Islamophobia didn't start here.
Islamophobia didn't begin when 202 innocent nightclubbers were killed, and 209 injured, on Bali.
According to Muslims, "Islamophobia is the view that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West, is a violent political ideology rather than a religion, that its criticisms of the West have no substance, and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified," but Islamophobia did not begin with the slaughter of innocents at Beslan. Of the almost 400 killed (209 Muslims), 186 were children. Many of the survivors lost arms, legs, hands, and/or eyes.
Islamophobia is defined by some as a prejudice against, or demonization of, Muslims. Of course it didn't begin with the bombing of Madrid commuter trains in 2004 that killed 191 and wounded 2,050.
Although the term "Islamophobia" has been used to silence critics of Islam, including Muslims who want to reform it, its use didn't start after London subway trains and a bus were bombed, killing 52 commuters and injuring 700 in 2005.
Although "Holy Warriors of Egypt" killed 88 and injured 150 at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt in 2005, Islamophobia didn't start here either.
After looking at these pictures, and realizing that hundreds, more to the point thousands, of pictures could be displayed of atrocities committed by Islamic extremists, the question still remains, "When did 'Islamophobia' start?"
According to the foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), "Islamophobia is the worst form of terrorism."
The foreign ministers of the OIC apparently have paid attention to the ACLU and learned that the best defense against criticism is to proclaim victim status.
"The Western bloc hates us because we're Muslims. Look at these atrocities against Muslims! Look at these Danish cartoons! Look at this quote Pope Benedict XVI read that criticized the Prophet! Of course after such provocations our peace-loving Muslim brothers had to riot and kill mostly other Muslims. Only a bunch of Islamophobics would condemn us for that!"
(The above is, of course, a made up quote. However, in the tradition of CBS, where forged documents, quotes, and film are used to illustrate a "greater truth," I follow CBS's lead and do the same. The only difference is I openly label my fabrications as such, and don't try to pass them off as genuine.)
I examined a lengthy list of complaints that claimed Muslims are victims of Islamophobia, and have arrived at a few conclusions. The first is that the alleged Islamophobia didn't result in any deaths other than at the hands of angry Muslims. I would find Muslim claims that they are being unfairly labeled as violent more believable if their reactions to criticism were not so violent.
I would find their protests against being labeled intolerant more believable if Muslims did not proclaim fatwas on Muslims who want to change religions, or denounce their religion. I would not call Muslims intolerant if they allowed other religions to be practiced openly in Saudi Arabia and other countries, just as we allow Muslims to worship openly in the Western bloc.
I would believe Muslims claims that they respect human rights if they actually allowed all Muslim women freedom of choice in education, employment, mode of dress, choice of marriage partner, freedom to walk unescorted, and to even drive a car (and a lot more, of course).
(About equal rights, the ayatollahs of Iran consider them "a Judeo-Christian invention" and inadmissible in Islam.)
So what is this Islamophobia, this worst form of terrorism?
First, it is a myth.
Then it is a device to label all criticism of Islam, even by Muslims, as discrimination and racism.
Finally, since a phobia is an "irrational fear," the only irrationality I have noted in this examination of Islamophobia is on the part of Muslims who think the Western bloc has not been given ample cause to fear militant Islamists.
Calling what is in essence a fear of Islamic terrorism by the Western bloc to be the worst form of terrorism is one of the most irrational things I have ever heard.
It's Islamophobia-phobia.
‘Islamophobia Worst Form of Terrorism’
‘Islamophobia Worst Form of Terrorism’ read the headline in the May 17, 2007 Arab News, “The Middle East’s Leading English Language Daily.”
Immediately I thought of the old nursery rhyme, “RPG’s and IED’s may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”
In a flash I delved deep into the article to find what oral atrocities of the West exceeded the carnage of 9/11, the Madrid and London outrages, the Beslan slaughter of innocents, the killing of pleasure-seeking night clubbers on Bali, the tit-for-tat car bombings of Sunnis of Shiite, and Shiite of Sunnis, in Baghdad, the annihilation of peaceful shoppers in Peshawar, the beheadings of Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, the United States embassies bombed in Africa, “honor” killings of Muslim women by Muslim men worldwide, and my list went on and on and so for brevity I now add “etc.”, and a huge "etc." it is.
What oral atrocities were mentioned by the Foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to prove that “Islamophobia (is the) worst form of terrorism”?
The Muhammad cartoons published in Denmark.
The Muhammad cartoons published in Denmark? That's disbelievable!
When the cartoons first came out, there was a big Muslim yawn in Europe. It wasn’t until months after publication when imams took the cartoons to show in the Middle East, and added some faked and truly offensive drawings that weren’t part of the original Danish cartoons, that the peace-loving Muslims freaked out and started to do what is now accepted as standard peace-loving Muslim procedure for dealing with provocations invented by their leaders – they started killing each other!
"I'll bet when we killed Akhmed it really taught those Danes a lesson!"
"That's right, Mustapha. They'll think twice before they upset us peace-loving Islamists again."
"Yeah, those crazy Danes."
What other oral provocations led the OIC foreign ministers to label them the worst form of terrorism?
Pope Benedict XVI, during a speech in Germany last year, quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things.
To prove the Pope wrong, followers of the Prophet immediately ran out and did evil and inhuman things.
The OIC foreign ministers noted the United States and Europe unfairly portrayed Islam, as quoted in Arab News:
I admit that the Western news media does create a very negative picture of Islam when they report the atrocities committed by Muslims on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Apparently the approach favored by the OIC foreign ministers is for the Western news media to report the news in the same way as the Muslim news media.
If we did it the Muslim news media way, we would know that the Jews were responsible for 9/11, with the connivance of the government of the United States. We would know that even after Osama bin Laden released videos taking credit for 9/11. We would know it even after we saw videos of Palestinians dancing in the streets celebrating 9/11.
I’ll bet that was the first time Palestinians ever celebrated a successful Jewish and American conspiracy.
Per Arab News: “The (OIC foreign) ministers also pointed out that whenever the issue of Islamophobia was discussed in international forums, the Western bloc, particularly some members of the European Union, tried to avoid discussing the core issue and instead diverted the attention from their region to the situation of non-Muslims and human rights in the OIC member states.”
Let’s see if I get this right. The OIC foreign ministers say that when they want to complain about how Islam is portrayed negatively in the Western bloc, the Western bloc representatives want to tell them the reasons why Islam is portrayed negatively. Things like the Muslim mistreatment of non-Muslims in Muslim countries, and the violations of human rights in the OIC member states.
There it is again. The OIC foreign ministers object to Western news media reporting the truth about the bad treatment of non-Muslims and the violations of human rights in Muslim states. “If you didn’t tell your people the truth about non-Muslims and human rights in Muslim states, your people wouldn’t think bad things about Islamists.”
Another way to approach the issue, if Muslim news media continues to print lies, and Western news media stops reporting truth, no more Islamophobia.
(Whacks self on forehead with palm of hand) Of course!
Immediately I thought of the old nursery rhyme, “RPG’s and IED’s may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”
In a flash I delved deep into the article to find what oral atrocities of the West exceeded the carnage of 9/11, the Madrid and London outrages, the Beslan slaughter of innocents, the killing of pleasure-seeking night clubbers on Bali, the tit-for-tat car bombings of Sunnis of Shiite, and Shiite of Sunnis, in Baghdad, the annihilation of peaceful shoppers in Peshawar, the beheadings of Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, the United States embassies bombed in Africa, “honor” killings of Muslim women by Muslim men worldwide, and my list went on and on and so for brevity I now add “etc.”, and a huge "etc." it is.
What oral atrocities were mentioned by the Foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to prove that “Islamophobia (is the) worst form of terrorism”?
The Muhammad cartoons published in Denmark.
The Muhammad cartoons published in Denmark? That's disbelievable!
When the cartoons first came out, there was a big Muslim yawn in Europe. It wasn’t until months after publication when imams took the cartoons to show in the Middle East, and added some faked and truly offensive drawings that weren’t part of the original Danish cartoons, that the peace-loving Muslims freaked out and started to do what is now accepted as standard peace-loving Muslim procedure for dealing with provocations invented by their leaders – they started killing each other!
"I'll bet when we killed Akhmed it really taught those Danes a lesson!"
"That's right, Mustapha. They'll think twice before they upset us peace-loving Islamists again."
"Yeah, those crazy Danes."
What other oral provocations led the OIC foreign ministers to label them the worst form of terrorism?
Pope Benedict XVI, during a speech in Germany last year, quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things.
To prove the Pope wrong, followers of the Prophet immediately ran out and did evil and inhuman things.
The OIC foreign ministers noted the United States and Europe unfairly portrayed Islam, as quoted in Arab News:
“Islamophobia became a source of concern, especially after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but the phenomenon was already there in Western societies in one form or the other,” they pointed out. “It gained further momentum after the Madrid and London bombings. The killing of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh in 2004 was used in a wicked manner by certain quarters to stir up a frenzy against Muslims,” the ministers pointed out. Van Gogh had made a controversial film about Muslim culture.
I admit that the Western news media does create a very negative picture of Islam when they report the atrocities committed by Muslims on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Apparently the approach favored by the OIC foreign ministers is for the Western news media to report the news in the same way as the Muslim news media.
If we did it the Muslim news media way, we would know that the Jews were responsible for 9/11, with the connivance of the government of the United States. We would know that even after Osama bin Laden released videos taking credit for 9/11. We would know it even after we saw videos of Palestinians dancing in the streets celebrating 9/11.
I’ll bet that was the first time Palestinians ever celebrated a successful Jewish and American conspiracy.
Per Arab News: “The (OIC foreign) ministers also pointed out that whenever the issue of Islamophobia was discussed in international forums, the Western bloc, particularly some members of the European Union, tried to avoid discussing the core issue and instead diverted the attention from their region to the situation of non-Muslims and human rights in the OIC member states.”
Let’s see if I get this right. The OIC foreign ministers say that when they want to complain about how Islam is portrayed negatively in the Western bloc, the Western bloc representatives want to tell them the reasons why Islam is portrayed negatively. Things like the Muslim mistreatment of non-Muslims in Muslim countries, and the violations of human rights in the OIC member states.
There it is again. The OIC foreign ministers object to Western news media reporting the truth about the bad treatment of non-Muslims and the violations of human rights in Muslim states. “If you didn’t tell your people the truth about non-Muslims and human rights in Muslim states, your people wouldn’t think bad things about Islamists.”
Another way to approach the issue, if Muslim news media continues to print lies, and Western news media stops reporting truth, no more Islamophobia.
(Whacks self on forehead with palm of hand) Of course!
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The High Price of Freedom for Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel
THE HIGH PRICE OF FREEDOM - AFTER FORSAKING MUSLIM BELIEFS, ALI SOUGHT EXILE, NOW FACES DEATH THREATS
Infidel, By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, FREE PRESS, reviewed by Sandip Roy in the Book Section of the San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, February 25, 2007.
An excerpt from Mr. Roy's review:
On one hand she rages righteously against the willful blindness of those who deny the honor killings and wife beatings that go on in the name of Islam. But then on the other she dismisses the way her statements can feed into the very real problems of stigma and profiling that are faced by thousands of innocent Muslims who get thrown off planes or disappear into detention centers. She makes statements like "Islam is backward" and then appears, rather naively, astonished when young Moroccans boo her. It is unclear how she even thinks there is room for reform in Islam when in her view the "faith is itself at the root of oppression."
But her fearlessness has sparked change, forcing Dutch authorities to start counting honor killings.
In the end, Ayaan, the daughter of Hirsi, the son of Magan, finally frees herself from the tangled bloodlines of obligation and obedience that caged her. But as you read about her hunkered down in a nameless motel between two freeways, guarded around the clock by Dutch police, you can only wonder about the price of that freedom.
As I read the above conclusion of Mr. Roy’s review of Ms. Ali’s autobiography, I was struck by the reviewer’s clueless remarks about Ms. Ali’s comments on Muslims and on the price of freedom. I contend his remarks are clueless from the point of view that he was writing a review for an American audience.
An American would think of Ms. Ali’s comments to fellow Muslims in the context of Dr. Martin Luther King’s remarks to fellow Americans. Dr. King, I feel sure, did not worry about how his statements about racial injustice in the American South served to stigmatize and profile thousands of innocent Southerners.
Mr. Roy’s remarks about these thousands of innocents being thrown off planes and disappearing into detention centers also strike me as disingenuous since I find very few instances in the news of that sort of thing happening. The only one that comes to mind in recent times involved six imams doing their best to draw attention to their strange antics on a commercial flight.
Of less recent vintage, a large number, but far from thousands, of unlawful combatants were captured on battlefields in Afghanistan and placed in indefinite detention. I don’t think many “innocents” wander through Afghan battlefields carrying AK-47’s and RPG’s (rocket propelled grenades).
However, the most striking thing in Mr. Roy’s review is what he didn’t include: if Muslims react negatively when Ms. Ali says “Islam is backwards,” that doesn’t mean Islam is not backwards, and it doesn’t mean that the Muslim in the street shouldn’t hear Islam criticized, especially by a former Muslim.
I know that multiculturalists would be offended that anyone would criticize another's culture, even if the critic had suffered its oppression. So honor killings and female circumcision go on, and the multiculturalists save their scathing remarks for the critics of Islam, not its barbaric practices.
"Oh, that is so judgmental."
Again my thoughts turn to the words of Dr. King. I think he thought there was room for reform in the South, even though he thought the culture of racism in the South was at the root of oppression there. As in most things, it is hard to correct a problem if you don’t give it a name.
Ms. Ali has given a name and a face to the backwardness of Islam. She was subjected to genital mutilation (female circumcision) against her will. She realized that any peace and comfort she had in life depended on another treating her well, and could be lost in an instant at their whim.
Given all Ms. Ali has suffered, Mr. Roy wonders if her freedom is worth the price of being “hunkered down in a nameless motel between two freeways, guarded around the clock by Dutch police …”
I wonder if Dr. King wondered the same on April 4, 1968, at 6:01 p.m. as he stepped onto the balcony outside the Motel Lorraine in Memphis, Tennessee.
Personally, I think both would agree their freedom was worth the price, because they both had a dream, and dreams die hard.
Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Women's Liberation, Muslim Style
With certain pictures, like this one I copied from Atlas Shrugs, no words are necessary.
However, for Liberals and other moral equivalence types, it would be presumptuous of me to assume they get the point of this picture. After all, the women in their veils proclaiming they are the liberated ones certainly don’t realize they are lampooning themselves. In their ignorance, and under the oppression of daily life as Muslim women, they probably sincerely believe that Westernized women are the oppressed of the world.
To them it makes sense. Westernized women are oppressed because they are forced to look sexy, dress sexy, compete with men for jobs, and go alone into the dangerous world every day. The concept that escapes these Muslim women is that other women think of these issues as matters of “choice,” or personal freedom. Westernized women don’t have to look or dress sexily if they don’t want. Many examples of such women come to mind, women such as Barbara Mikulski or Roseanne Barr.
Muslim women feel that education for females is wasted, because all a female has to do to please Allah and her husband is stay home and produce and raise little jihadists, the more the better.
And after the clitorectomy, what use is it to the Muslim wife to look sexy? The good Muslim husband will be attentive anyway, regardless of her pleasure or lack thereof.
It is a fundamental mystery to me that Liberals, so easily upset about issues of women’s choices – female sports reporters having access to male locker rooms, women in combat – and of equal rights for women, could be so blind to the treatment of Muslim women. Do you Liberals think the Muslim women choose to be illiterate and uneducated, to be confined like prisoners and to have limited contact with the world around them, and to be beaten at the whims of their husbands and to be murdered to redeem family honor?
Do you really think we shouldn’t criticize Muslims for their treatment of women?
Do you really think we should accept that they have chosen to live their lives as miserable slaves to their families and husbands?
Do you really see moral equivalence in the way Muslim women live compared to Westernized women?
The women in the veils – don’t you think they are brainwashed? And scared?
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Unlawful Combatants And The Law
Muslim translation of the Geneva Convention
The Liberals have used one phrase over and over to criticize any action President Bush takes to protect Americans from Islamic terrorists. “If we do (whatever President Bush suggests), the terrorists will have won.”
For instance, if President Bush wants “unlawful combatants” treated as unlawful combatants, the terrorists will have won. Why will the terrorists win? Because we are not giving unlawful combatants the protection of the Geneva Convention, even though the Geneva Convention does not give them its protection, in that the unlawful combatants are neither signatories to the Geneva Convention, nor do they extend its protections to any prisoners they hold.
Perhaps, the Liberals may suggest, the terrorists really should be treated as criminals – when captured, they should be given all the rights afforded an American citizen through the United States criminal justice system. Such an approach would impose a legal system on a battlefield. Probably, as a minimum, there would need to be a body of laws to enforce. If the unlawful combatants, i.e., combatants captured in Afghanistan who were not wearing uniforms, and were not part of a national military, were treated as criminals, whose criminal laws would apply? Afghanistan’s? The United States’?
I am guessing that Liberals wouldn’t be satisfied unless there was International Law, which brings me to the next consideration. What is the enforcement agency for violations of international law by unlawful combatants? The United States military? What rules of evidence will apply? Probably as a minimum a chain of evidence would have to be maintained. Of course the soldiers who made the capture would have to testify, and be subject to cross examination by defense counsel. Further, unless there was testimony from crime scene investigators and forensics experts, I doubt if the testimony of soldiers not trained in proper police procedures would stand up before an experienced defense lawyer.
How was probable cause determined? Just because you find someone carrying an AK-47 on a battlefield doesn’t mean he was going to use it against you. And if he did, he probably was frightened by all the soldiers and only fired it in self defense. Would testimony from American soldiers be necessary to prove that the unlawful combatant intended to kill or injure an American?
“Of course not,” Liberals might say, “you can’t be so legalistic on a battlefield. Adjustments in legal procedures would be made.”
Oh yeah? What will the International Criminal Court say about that? Wouldn’t they have jurisdiction? It’s either that, or the United States (the world-wide left would never stand for that), or an Afghan government that didn’t exist when the crimes took place.
It only took five years to try Slobodan Milošević, whose death in prison before a verdict was rendered was an act of mercy which saved the International Criminal Court further embarrassment. Legal experts had already faulted the court for a lack of modern jurisprudence, and the prosecutor for having little or no evidence to support his case. Now multiply the International Criminal Court workload by many hundreds, the witnesses and evidence by many thousands, and all parties to the trials would be dead of old age before any verdicts were rendered.
I’m sure there are thousands of legal experts out there who will tell me how wrong I am about the proper way to handle legal procedures involving unlawful combatants. I suppose they are the same legal experts who were so critical when the United States did not endorse the International Criminal Court.
I eagerly await their learned comments.
Ann Coulter wonders "Are Videotaped Beheadings Covered by Geneva?"
Dafydd on Big Lizards and John on Power Line note that Senator McCain had President Bush sign a bill into law two years ago covering the treatment of terrorists, but now wants to give the terrorists even better treatment. I guess Senator McCain feels that this will make the terrorists continue to treat prisoners they hold humanely - you know, no dull knives for beheadings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)